I believe that comes from Old Testament Leviticus that lists all the things you cannot eat that will make you unclean. Unclean, not sinful.
Nonetheless, this is the Old Pharisee Law, already abolished by Our Lord at the making of the New Covenant -- with New Law and New Sacrifice.
I believe the issue of keeping the Kosher rules and regulation of the Old Law was discussed somewhere in the New Testament, when the Apostles discussed the necessity of the Gentile coverts to observe these rather rigorous law. I believe they came to the consensus that no, Gentiles do not need to adhere to these Law that governs the way of life.

if you remember, it's Christ that said, "what goes into the mouth of man isn't unclean, but what comes out that can be bad (poor paraphrasing) and i can't remember the exact chapter and verse, maybe some of the more learned scholars watching and reading can be of help.

"every creature of God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because according to the word of the Lord not what goes into the mouth defiles a person, and because the difference in the Mosaic law between clean and unclean foods belongs to ceremonial practices, which have passed away and lost their efficacy with the coming of the gospel"

Matthew 15:11 "...It is not what enters one's mouth that defiles that person; but what comes out of the mouth is what defiles one." Footnote further explaining...

1 [1-20] This dispute begins with the question of the Pharisees and scribes why Jesus' disciples are breaking the tradition of the elders about washing one's hands before eating Jesus' counterquestion accuses his opponents of breaking the commandment of God for the sake of their tradition and illustrates this by their interpretation of the commandment of the Decalogue concerning parents. Denouncing them as hypocrites, he applies to them a derogatory prophecy of Isaiah. Then with a wider audience (the crowd, he goes beyond the violation of tradition with which the dispute has started. The parable is an attack on the Mosaic law concerning clean and unclean foods, similar to those antitheses that abrogate the law. After a warning to his disciples not to follow the moral guidance of the Pharisees, he explains the parable to them, saying that defilement comes not from what enters the mouth but from the evil thoughts and deeds that rise from within, from the heart. The last verse returns to the starting point of the dispute (eating with unwashed hands). Because of Matthew's omission of, some scholars think that Matthew has weakened the Marcan repudiation of the Mosaic food laws. But that half verse is ambiguous in the Greek, which may be the reason for its omission here.

Also, if you are arguing this point with a Messionic Jew or a Herbert Armstrong follower, point to the passage in Mark (Mk7:19). They will claim that the passage in Matthew proves that Jesus was only saying that eating with unclean hands is ok, but Mark gives a more complete interpretation. And remember, Christians believe that all the gospel writers' interpretations are infallible and inerrant, so don't let them claim that Matthew somehow overrides Mark.

Never heard that one before. Do you remember where or from whom you heard that -- and whyit would be a sin??????

YES...MY MOM!!! But I believe she read it in Leviticus...

The reasoning is because some shell fish are considered the scavengers of the ocean..eating all the garbage! I guess her theory is by eating unclean will make her unclean??? She always says "you are what you eat" Now is this a health issue or religious...I must find out!

The reasoning is because some shell fish are considered the scavengers of the ocean..eating all the garbage! I guess her theory is by eating unclean will make her unclean??? She always says "you are what you eat" Now is this a health issue or religious...I must find out!

There is increasing scientific evidence (which I do not have at my fingertips, so don't ask) that eating large amounts of bottom-feeding water-critters is bad for you. Consequently, I consume such critters only rarely, but I don't go so far as to think that part of the Torah still applies to us. The exception I make is catfish, which is normally a scavenger, but most of the catfish in the restaurants around here are farm-raised.

DaveBj

__________________
Author of The Children of the Maker, Kindle Edition

Yes, the Torah did forbid eating of many things - some of which most of us still wouldn't eat for reasons other than religious. They can be found in Leviticus chapter 11. I won't copy the chapter because it is too long, but here is what it forbids: camels, badger, rabbits, pork, any seafood that doesn't have fins and scales, eagle, osprey, falcon, raven, ostrich, night hawk, sea gull, owl, water hen, pelican, vulture, stork, heron, hoopoe, bat, etc (it goes on and on).

Anyway, I would suggest that these laws were merely prophetic or symbolic of things to come:

Colossians 2:16-17 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

I actually believe that these unclean foods symbolize the gentiles. Before Christ died for our sins, salvation for gentiles couldn't be possible since they were unclean. Peter was given this understanding as well (see Acts 10:9-16 and Acts 10:28-29). So, in my opinion, holding to the food laws because the Torah prohibits eating unclean foods as a Christian is the very same act of denying Christ's sacrifice on the cross. If you read Ignatius' writings, he agrees with this and is very harsh to early Christians who insisted on observing the food laws.

Another example of how the Old Testiment laws were shadows of things to come:

Leviticus 17:21 "And if anyone touches an unclean thing, whether the uncleanness of man or an unclean beast or any unclean abomination, and then eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of the Lord's peace offerings, that person shall be cut off from his people."

compared to:

1Cor 11:23-31 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

So from this, we understand why we aren't allowed to take the Eucharist when our souls are unclean (in mortal sin) because we are then not eating his flesh (the sacrifice of the Lord's peace offering) as an offering for the forgiveness of sins, but are instead acting as those who profaned and crucified him in the first place and we are therefore judged for our sins on our soul.